Fact-Checkers

      Fact-checking has come under a lot of fire in recent years.  Certainly, it can be weaponized -- if only one side of a dispute gets fact-checked, it can warp perceptions, especially if both sides are indulging in the usual mish-mash of fact, factiod, misrepresentation and wishful thinking.

      Conversely, a good fact-checker can add clarity to a situation and even improve the utility of debate by nudging the participants away from handwaving and hyperbole (or at least pointing it out to onlookers).

      FactCheck.org has been impressing me for awhile now; they don't take any side except the facts.  A good example would be their take-down of President Biden's repetition of tired, old, false statements about guns.  Another is their balanced analysis of Georgia's election law and what politicians are claiming about it, which spares no one.

      "Spares no one" is exactly what I want a fact-checker to do.  Yes, they're occasionally going to gore your ox -- especially if that particular ox can't stick to the facts.  Tough; it's far better to live in reality, and it makes for a lot fewer unpleasant surprises.